matrix wrote:

Swordfish54 wrote:No prohibitions to the approach if the RVR is varying between distances less than and greater than the minimum RVR

Do you have a reference for this?

I took it out of the AIM 9.19.2.3 sub para c
being from a military background where approach bans are not used, I always liked being able to shoot an approach regardless of the reported vis. If the runway environment was visual at approach minimums, continue to land, if not overshoot. I suppose with at least the approach ban caveats like the one above your hands aren't completely tied?

It's been 6 years, but just recently read this thread, and decided to give an ATC point of view, as there was none until now.

CCR wrote: We abandoned the approach and landed on 24L. Just curious why does ATC allow approaches to occur if the ban is in effect and what would they do if they thought that the pilots had violated the ban?

It's not a question of allowing or not the approach. We dont play policeman here. We inform you guys of the RVR value, and then it's up to you to decide if you want to try the approach or not.

RVR can be 500ft, as long as i mention it to you, if you want to fly the approach, there will be no one stopping you ! I do believe that the tower controller will file a report though, so you might hear about it from TC if you fly in below RVR mins.

AAAME wrote: If Atc says you can go for it,the chances of mising a ILS approach is rare.

That is a flawed assumption, for several reasons, including the ones I mentioned above.

Thenoflyzone

I believe the words "ground visibility" in the localized phenomena clause was intended to apply regardless of what is governing - either rvr, tower reported vis, or ground reported vis from whatever source, otherwise it would have been added just under subsection C - ground vis.

Therefore my interpretation is that a localized phenomena was clearly in effect, the approach and runway vis was above the minima therefore you can continue the approach under the localized phenomena clause regardless of the source of the visibility reading.

I personally would be happy to argue that point before any authority that chose to question it, the intent of the localized phenomena clause is exactly these situations.

and yet there have been many times flying into yhz 14, that you could see the button from windsor. But RVR is -1600 and you are prevented from flying the approach

The other problem should have been the runway level of service for taxi. On 24R (and 24L), it's 1200RVR, and Montreal Tower shouldn't be issuing a landing clearance outside of the FAF if you don't also meet the runway level of service requirements.

Valhalla wrote:The other problem should have been the runway level of service for taxi. On 24R (and 24L), it's 1200RVR, and Montreal Tower shouldn't be issuing a landing clearance outside of the FAF if you don't also meet the runway level of service requirements.

Keep in mind the OP date was well before TC started enforcing RVOP/LVOP's (in the spring of 2009 I think). It wasn't even a thought for pilots nor ATC prior to then.

Remember ATC is their to screw you over